Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Taittiriya Aranyaka III.iii.7, Purusha Suktam & Upanishad

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Namaste Chitteranjanji:

You wrote:

Namaste Sri Michaelji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chitteranjan and Sanjay,

>For instance because the Upanishads make reference

> to 5 Elements are you proposing that we revisethe periodic table?

 

No, the elements of the periodic table are given in the further

evolution of the elements wherein the five primal elements first

arose. According to Advaita, the five elements combine to produce the

gross elements through a process known as quintuplication. The gross

elements further combine with one another in different proportions to

give us the elements that we know as the elements of the world such

as iron, gold, mercury, etc.

 

The five primal elements are the corresponding objects of the five

primal senses that we possess - the sense of hearing, the sense of

touch, the sense of sight, the sense of taste, and the sense of

smell. The objects that we perceive in the world around us are not

simple objects, but are the objects compounded of the objects of

different senses.

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||

 

M: Are you saying that the Vedas were representing the pre-scientific

 

knowledge of their time which has been superceded by the empirical

 

experimentally based science of today or are you saying that the

 

combination according to the laws of quintuplication have relevance

 

today. Are you argueing that it is conceivable that in some laboratory

 

today this could be shown to be the case?

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

> Do you think that the word 'go' has more cowhood/cownessabout it than

> 'bo', 'vache', 'vaccus' etc.? That would

> confirm the tower of Babel story :-)

 

I am unable to understand the question. There is no more or less to

cowness. More and less as seen in the world are particulars of

moreness and lessness.

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

M: I can understand your reluctance to admit to this theory which you

 

limn elsewhere ie. "This vidya uses the very power by which

 

Consciousness creates the

universe through the word. Each phoneme (or sound of the letter) of

the alphabet is related to an aspect of this universe. Certain

combinations of phonemes are called mantras and the Grace of

Consciuosness is invoked for Shakti to abide in the mantra for it to

work. I think I should stop now at this point, for already I have

said enough today to be ranked as some kindly of loony character set

loose in this world! :-)"

So is the language that is used Sanskrit or is it one of the other

 

favoured tongues Arabic, Hebrew, or Greek.

||||||||||||||

> This position seems not to cohere with the

> one you took in relation to Frank Morales.

> You scouted his argument that the Vedicone reality many paths idea was

> distinctlydifferent from that of other religions

> and that therefore the view that somehow

> all religions are the same was false.

 

The proposition that all religions are the same is not false. They

are same in terms of the sameness that is in them which is the Living

Principle (chaitanya). They are distinct in so far as they have

distinct attributes. That is what I had said in the article to

counter the view that the sameness of religions would negate the

distinctions between them.

 

> This is a unique notion which marks a

> distinct and different religion said Frank. Youtook the approach that

> contradiction was

> merely apparent or many more words to that

> effect.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

M:If the Vedas have something to say which is true in a scientific

 

sense as you make out in relation to the Periodic Table, suitably

 

permuted, then Religious discourse can agree with or deny other forms

 

of discourse including other Religious stories. This marches us

 

straight into the ambush of the atheist who says 'well they can't agree

 

on anything, the whole thing is nonsense'. When Shankara is looking to

 

reconcile various texts, what he is seeking is internal coherence

 

according to the general Vedic matrix not reconciliation with anything

 

and everthing from hither and yon.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||

CN:

No that is not what I had said. I had said that there are vishesha

religions and universal religion and that the vishesha religions do

not contradict the universal religion as they are particulars of the

universal.

 

||||||||||||||||||||||

 

M: I presume you are referring to the concept of Sanathana Dharma which

 

is embedded in the Vedic matrix and is not physically separated out in

 

the form of an entity. It is an element within Hinduism so you were

 

not contradicting Frank when he said that instantiated forms of

 

religious worship are different.

||||||||||||||||||||||||

> Now you are saying that contradiction counts. Which is it?

 

Contradiction counts. Brahman is not subject to contradictions

because contradictions are applicable to objects in the realm of

names and forms and not to the Ground of names and forms. That is

what I had said in the article.

||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

M: That would be entirely unobjectionable because vacuous. However you

 

now appear to be saying that religious discourse holds sway over other

 

realms and can disagree with them in a meaningful sense as in your

 

repudiation of the big bang, false in the light of revelation.

|||||||||||||||||

CN:

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

||||||||||

ditto,

Michael.

--

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Respected Sir,

 

Thank u very much. I will read Brihadaranyakopanishad of which i have a copy.

The url connection is not showing well in my computer.

 

In

Sah bhuriti vyaharat bhuvamasrujata,

 

did He literaly say Bhu:H in Sanskrit and create the bhuvam?

 

I am interpreting the word bhu:h to MEAN by COGNITION the bhuvam, and in that

interpretation, I can reconcile both the Purusha Sukatam text

 

sarva:ni ru:pa:ni vichitya dhi:rah na:ma:ni kruthva bhivadan yada:sthe:

 

The loRD VISUALISED THE bHUVAM AND CREATED IT . Later as the ji:va:s , he

revisualised bhuvam as bhu:h or earth, etc in different languages and created

the words in the reverse direction from a vyavaharika plane creating our speech.

 

Any comments?

 

Love

Bhuvaneswar

 

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 Sunder Hattangadi wrote :

>advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

><bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > In which Upanishad does the bhuriti vyaharat quote comes?

>

>Namaste,

>

> Is the reference perhaps to the following?

>

>http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/brinew-proofed.itx

>

>saH aham asmi iti agre vyAharat

>

>so.ahamasmItyagre vyAharat [i.iv.1]

>

>

>

>Regards,

>

>Sunder

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namaste Sri Michaelji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

 

CN:

> No, the elements of the periodic table are given in the

> further evolution of the elements wherein the five primal

> elements first arose. According to Advaita, the five

> elements combine to produce the gross elements through a

> process known as quintuplication. The gross elements further

> combine with one another in different proportions to give

> us the elements that we know as the elements of the world

> such as iron, gold, mercury, etc.

>

> The five primal elements are the corresponding objects of

> the five primal senses that we possess - the sense of hearing,

> the sense of touch, the sense of sight, the sense of taste,

> and the sense of smell. The objects that we perceive in the

> world around us are not simple objects, but are the objects

> compounded of the objects ofdifferent senses.

 

M:

> Are you saying that the Vedas were representing the

> pre-scientific knowledge of their time which has been

> superceded by the empirical experimentally based science

> of today

 

CN:

No, I am not saying that.

 

M:

> or are you saying that the combination according to the

> laws of quintuplication have relevance today.

 

CN:

I am not sure if we can call the process of quintuplication a law. It

is the process of mixing the five pure elements constituted in the

subtle world of Hiranyagharba whereby they evolve into the gross

elements constituting the gross world of Virat.

 

M:

> Are you argueing that it is conceivable that in some laboratory

> today this could be shown to be the case?

 

CN:

The only laboratory it can be shown in is the laboratory of

Consciousness. Fire, for example, is that which is lit in all things

seen by the eye (by the sense of sight). How can one take all of it

and put it into a test tube in the laboratory of science. What is

seen visibly of the test tube is also that self-same fire that one

would need to put into the test tube if one were to follow the

scientific method. The scientific method is incommensurate with the

means for obtaining higher knowledge. Science is in fact a hindrance

on the path of self-knowledge. It is one of the purva-pakshas that

Vedanta must confront and demolish before the truth of Vedanta is

seen.

 

What is it that is called fire? What is air? These are the

pure objects of the senses. Fire is the substance of which light and

visible form are the attributes. All visible forms are the forms of

fire and its visibility is its light. The world that we see is the

dance of fire. (Heraclites! Weren't these your words?)

 

The element air of the Upanishads is not the air of science. It is

the air that we knew in a somewhat - only somewhat -purer form before

it was ravished by science. Air is not made up of nitrogen and oxygen

and such other grosser things. Air is the pure element that is prior

to nitrogen and oxygen. Air is the pure element that is subsistent in

nitrogen and oxygen. It is the second element to evolve in creation

and it is beheld without the eyes, without the tongue, without the

nose; it is beheld only with the skin (sense of touch). It is that

which pervaded space as the primordial invisible existential and was

presented in Consciousness as that which was touched. It was all over

in space (akasha) and it was prior to fire and water and earth; all

these made of fire and water and earth evolved from it. (Hark! Do I

not now hear Anaximenis whispering? And if I continue in this vein

will I not also hear the whisper of Thales?)

 

We have lost our ability to see the pure elements through loss of

meaning. This loss of meaning is the loss of cognition that marks

the 'descent' of the soul. The soul 'ascends' again when it regains

the cognition that it had lost wherein it can cognise once again the

primordial elements of creation. It is called re cognition or

pratyabhijna.

_______________

 

M:

> Do you think that the word 'go' has more cowhood/cownessabout

> it than 'bo', 'vache', 'vaccus' etc.? That would confirm the

> tower of Babel story :-)

 

C:

> I am unable to understand the question. There is no more or

> less to cowness. More and less as seen in the world are

> particulars of moreness and lessness.

 

M:

> I can understand your reluctance to admit to this theory

 

C:

If there is reluctance on my part to admit my convictions, it is

because I have still not learnt to be a clown among people! :-)

 

M:

> which you limn elsewhere ie. "This vidya uses the very power

> by which Consciousness creates the universe through the word.

> Each phoneme (or sound of the letter) of the alphabet is

> related to an aspect of this universe. Certain combinations

> of phonemes are called mantras and the Grace of Consciuosness

> is invoked for Shakti to abide in the mantra for it to

> work. I think I should stop now at this point, for already I

> have said enough today to be ranked as some kindly of loony

> character set loose in this world! :-)"

 

C:

Well Michaelji, today I seem to be well on my way to being ranked as

one! I hold the Tower of Babel story to be true!

 

M:

> So is the language that is used Sanskrit or is it one of the

> other favoured tongues Arabic, Hebrew, or Greek.

 

C:

It is the Sanskrit of the Vedas and not the laukika words of the

Sanskrit language. It is what the Vedas themselves say about the

Vedas being the words through which the universe is created. The

scriptures of the Arabs and the Hebrews and the Greeks say that the

world was created through the word, but they do not say that these

words are the Arabic or the Hebrew or the Greek language. The Vedas

do not belong to any one people of this earth, but there are people

on the earth that are the custodians of the Vedas and they (have the

role to) preserve them here in their original sound form. The

custodians are however not the owners. The Vedas belong to all of

creation and to all beings.

_____________

 

M:

> If the Vedas have something to say which is true in a

> scientific sense as you make out in relation to the

> Periodic Table, suitably permuted, then Religious

> discourse can agree with or deny other forms of discourse

> including other Religious stories.

 

CN:

Kant said that the sciences exist and they work, therefore the

question that we must properly ask is: How is it that these sciences

come to be possible? It is in this sense that religious enquiry may

engage the sciences to understand the schema of the universe whereby

science is made possible. But Kant did not see that the things that

make science possible may not make it a faithful depiction of

Reality. I would say, like Wittgenstein said, that science is a net

laid out upon reality. Proceeding further, I would be inclined to say

that the net of science makes reality appear in the new guise of the

net that is laid out over it. I have argued elsewhere that science is

an accurate depiction of the abstract dynamism of things but it has

nothing to say about the 'what' of things. The dynamism of things is

given by the mathematics within the (scientific) framework wherin

both the formulation and the interpretation of the mathmatics are

done without a consideration of the 'what' of things or the structure

of the language that is used to designate these things and the

relationships that abide between them. Science is a stupendous

discipline no doubt, but when it also begins to claim that it is

depicting 'what' things are, then the claim needs to be investigated.

 

M:

> This marches us straight into the ambush of the atheist who

> says 'well they can't agree on anything, the whole thing is

> nonsense'.

 

CN:

No, I think I have given sufficient reasons to show why such a

situation will not arise.

 

M:

> When Shankara is looking to reconcile various texts, what he

> is seeking is internal coherence according to the general

> Vedic matrix not reconciliation with anything and everthing

> from hither and yon.

 

CN:

True, Shankara is seeking internal coherence within the Vedic matrix,

but I have a feeling that you are also refering here to my refutation

of Dr. Morales' thesis wherein I might have given you the impression

that by refuting his views, I was somehow saying that all differences

are to be reconciled. But that is not what I had said in the article.

I had refuted Dr. Morales' view to show that the sameness in

different things do not negate the specific differences between them.

What is meant by saying that all religions are the same is not the

same as saying that the specific vision of each religion is the same,

but that there is a sameness that lies within the visions of all

religions - which is the Chaitanya or the Living Principle seen in

them. Dr. Morales had said that each religion is a distinct religion

that leads to a 'different mountain', and he had gone to the extent

of saying that the paths of various religions do not even lead to the

same 'mountain'. His arguments had completely ignored the

relationships that abide between universals and particulars and

between substances and attributes with the end result that he not

only (fallaciously) negated the universalism in Hinduism but also

concluded (falsely) that Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was an

illiterate who was not imbibed of the true spirit of Hinduism. The

arguments furnished by Dr Frank Gaetano Morales in the Radical

Universalism article were like those of the sophists of China who had

argued that a white horse is not a horse. Their argument was

something like this: 'white' and 'horse' are different things.

A 'white horse' is a different thing than the thing called 'white'

and the thing called 'horse'. Therefore, a white horse is not a

horse. The Chinese School of Names, to which the doctrine of the

white horse belongs, was dismantled by the Confucians.

______________

 

CN:

> No that is not what I had said. I had said that there are vishesha

> religions and universal religion and that the vishesha religions do

> not contradict the universal religion as they are particulars of the

> universal.

 

M:

> I presume you are referring to the concept of Sanathana Dharma

> which is embedded in the Vedic matrix and is not physically

> separated out in the form of an entity. It is an element within

> Hinduism

 

CN:

It is not exactly as you put it. Sanatana Dharma is not an element

within Hinduism if by Hinduism is meant what the people of India (are

supposed to) practice. It would by truer to say that Hinduism is a

form of Sanatana Dharma. It is all a bit difficult to articulate but

I shall try.

 

Sanatana Dharma is the Eternal Dharma. It is in the leaves of the

trees, it is in the hills, it is in the valleys, it is in the sky and

in the water, it is in the religion of ancient Greece, it is in the

mystery religion of ancient Egypt, it is in the Mesopotamian religion

of Inaana, it is in the religion given to the children of Jerusulem,

it is in Christianity and in the religion of the Essenes, it is in

the religion of Islam, it is in the religion of Zoroaster, it is in

the Paganism of the Celts and the Shamanism of the Pacific Islands,

there is no dharma anywhere in this entire universe that is not

Sanatana Dharma. This Eternal Dharma is revealed in the Vedas. The

Eternal Dharma is the Way of all beings that accords with their

swadharmas or their intrinsic natures. Dharma as a normative

principle is the norm that one shall live in accordance with one's

swadharma. It is the one principle that finds expression in Lord

Krishna's words: "Better one's own duty, though devoid of merit, than

the duty of another well discharged. Better is death in one's own

duty; the duty of another is productive of danger." (BG.III.35)

 

In the Eternal Religion, each people on this earth has its own

vishesha religion in accordance with their nature or swadharma. Their

religion is in accordance with the principles of the Eternal Dharma

whereby they have to live by their intrinsic natures as given to them

by the specific religion revealed to them. The specific religion that

the people of India (now called Hindus) are to live by is the

religion of Vaidika Dharma wherein they are the custodians of the

Vedas. This Dharma is a vishesha religion because they may not live

as Christians do or as Muslims do. They have to live according to

their swadharma if they are to abide by dharma.

 

M:

> so you were not contradicting Frank when he said that

> instantiated forms of religious worship are different.

 

CN:

I was not contradicting his view that instantiated forms of religious

worship are different. If that was all that he had to say, I would

not have ventured to write a rebuttal of his article. I will

reproduce herebelow the reasons I had stated in my article for

writing it.

 

"We shall henceforth use the term 'Hindu Universalism' to refer to

the true universalism that exists in Hinduism as distinguished from

Radical Universalism, or the absurd idea that all religions are

exactly the same. Dr. Morales conflates the two and presents them as

if they constitute one single idea. It is this conflation that has

derailed the entire Critique of Radical Universalism and reduced it

to the level of mere sophistry instead of being worthy of the title

of Philosophical Critique that it bears. By treating the genuine

universalism that exists in Hinduism as well as the misbegotten idea

that all religions are EXACTLY the same as one amorphous idea under

the common banner of Radical Universalism, Dr. Morales denies not

merely the idea that all religions are exactly the same, but also the

veneer of sublime universalism that runs through the texture of

Hinduism."

 

"While it is true that there is in neo-Hinduism a distressing trend

to reduce the great universal ideas of Hinduism into naïve, and

often, inane platitudes, we must at the same time guard ourselves

from overly reacting to it and discarding the sublime with the

profane. If Dr. Morales had merely denied that traditional Hinduism

d to the idea that all religions are exactly the same, we

would have had no cause to write this reply, but since he also

attempts, on account of his indiscriminations, to dispossess Hinduism

of some of its central tenets, and to go so far as to belittle great

Hindu saints like Sri Ramakrishna, we shall be obliged to set our

labours to correct the serious distortions caused by his paper."

 

M:

> Now you are saying that contradiction counts. Which is it?

 

CN:

> Contradiction counts. Brahman is not subject to contradictions

> because contradictions are applicable to objects in the realm of

> names and forms and not to the Ground of names and forms. That is

> what I had said in the article.

 

M:

> That would be entirely unobjectionable because vacuous.

 

CN:

Dr Frank Morales had attempted to fill up the sacred vacuum where no

propositions reside by saying that Brahman is subject to either-or

propositions.

 

M:

> However you now appear to be saying that religious discourse

> holds sway over other realms and can disagree with them in a

> meaningful sense as in your repudiation of the big bang,

> false in the light of revelation.

 

CN:

Yes.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namaste Sri Felipe-ji,

 

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

> As for jnana-marga and it's lack of a clearly defined path,

> i had felt this coming, unfortunately... I must then only

> conclude that the path to be taken is the same that has led

> me here, where "apparently different" individuals congregate

> through the power of similar ideas, drawn together by

> this power represented by knowledge?

 

I believe that this too is part of the path. The path leads to all

things, inside all things, around all things, into the form of all

things, and above all into our minds where the darkness resides

because we don't go there. Going there is the path. I believe that

where the light of Self shines is the path.

> As for one of your later posts, i beg to differ with you...

 

Actually I don't think we are in much difference in view of what you

say below.

> To elaborate on this matter, what i mean by this is that

> his theory does not tries to connect the cause to the effect,

> as it is a "mere" description of the effect itself. It would

> be the same as, in the event of you reaching out to grab a

> glass of water, a theory being derived to describe the

> movement of your hand. However, not in a single moment would

> the theory object wether you were thirsty or not.

 

If I have understood you correctly, we agree perfectly on this. I

call this 'description of the movement' the 'abstract dynamism' of

things (as mentioned in my previous post to Michaelji), which I had

once written a little bit on as part of a larger post in the (now

defunct) discussion forum of The Philosophers Magazine, and I

reproduce it here below:

 

3. SCIENCE, ESSENCE AND DYNAMISM

 

3.1 The organic structure of the scientific interpretive framework is

displayed in the language it employs: the languages of mathematics.

 

3.2 The elements or signs of the language of science, that is, of

mathematics, are variables, relations and operators. Its grammar is

its structural form. i.e. the structure of formulae.

 

3.3 Variables denote magnitudes, not substantial things. The language

of mathematics does not denote things as they are essentially, but

the magnitudes of things, or their relations.

 

3.4 A thing, in substance, has no degree or magnitude, only its

qualifying attribute has.

 

3.5 Magnitudes indicate degrees of extension or intention of a

qualifying attribute. Magnitudes do not say anything of the essence

of the attribute.

 

3.6 Variables, therefore, say nothing whatsoever of what a thing in

essence is, or what its quality in essence is is, but only about the

extent to which the qaulity of a thing is.

 

3.7 The extent to which a quality is, indicates something about its

manifest form i.e., the degree, though not its essence.

 

3.8 Even though variables do not indicate what a thing is, its value

can indicate how the thing actualises in nature by denoting the

formal extent or degree of the attribute.

 

3.9 Scientific frameworks are thus descriptions of the abstract

dynamism of things, without being descriptions of the natures or

essences of things.

 

> Thus, the theory being another theory arising in the maya

> of time, refering to a somewhat lower level on the ladder

> when compared to the scriptures, therefore not in direct

> contradiction. In other words, the theory being a

> mechanical description of the mechanism, being it BrAhma's

> speech or otherwise.

 

I agree with you when you say that the Big Bang theory is another

theory in Maya at a somewhat lower level, but would say that what

separates the 'lower' from the 'higher' is either (1) the completion

of the theory, in which case there is no direct contradiction between

it and the scriptures, or (2) the extent to which the confusions of

ignorance are built into the theories, in which case there would be a

contradiction. I am not sure that the Big Bang theory is free of the

latter kind of 'lowerness'.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...